200 + hour game reviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter TorontoReign
  • Start date Start date
T

TorontoReign

Guest
waaaafafsafsafsaf.png


Don't take this personally since I know many of you are like this, but how autistic do you have to be to think that 30 dollars is not worth 234 hours of your time? I have seen 1,000 hour reviews much the same way. Ok fine wait until it is 15 dollars, right? No, this person is ranting about balance, not the price, and this and that faction being done wrong, while also playing the game obsessively since they clearly like it. Hell they say they LOVE IT. This bothers me because clearly the amount of time they played the game meant they enjoyed it then they played the fuck out of it until they did not enjoy it anymore. So why give it a negative review? Because you already got your enjoyment and wanna stick it to the dev because you are mentally ill? I think that is generally it.

If you play a game for 200 hours or more and give it a negative review you should seek mental treatment if you have not already.
 
Well, that person says that the devs keep changing a lot of things to be worse. So maybe most of the gameplay time was before those worse things were implemented.

Sometimes games are great and then over time the devs make them horrible and so some players go and write a negative review after playing it for ages. That person also mentioned that you need at least 50 hours to play as a squad leader and at least 75 hours to play commander (whatever that is). So maybe 1/3 of the time played was just to be able to get the "full game experience".

But the most common thing about high play time negative reviews are usually because of my first point. Devs changing stuff and making the game worse after players already played it for ages.
 
No he said the game NEEDS to be like that. I understand games change over time and you might grow to dislike it but it is usually very personal gripes that a person has while most of the reviews are positive. There will be one guy with 50,000 hours that posts a 10 page review with no comments because his ass is too hurt to talk like a big boy and actually defend his shitty POV. For the record he is playing a game that has been out for only a year. I fully expect the whiner to still play it and add more playtime to his 200 + hours while acting like the NMA fanbase that acts like they hate Bethesda.
 
Well I would also rate a heroin addiction as negative despite taking up many hours of someones life.
 
I guess this would imply they are only addicted to the game and really do not enjoy it even when they do.
 
TorontoReign said:
I guess this would imply they are only addicted to the game and really do not enjoy it even when they do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, or that they played it before something changed. I have a lot of hours in League of Legends because I played it a lot like, 2012-2014, but I would give it a negative review today as it stopped being fun.
 
I would give it a positive review and just warn people about the issues I have with it currently. You and me disagreed really strongly on KCD last time though so no shots fired!

Also the reason why I would do that is because I like to support devs that make games I like. Minor balance issues are stupid and are often worked out. Dude whined about the Russians a lot so I guess he is Russian. He probably has a big Z painted on his forehead.

Also also by support I mean endorse and review if the game is good. I usually buy their games when they are practically free so I don't support in that way. I am a tightwad when it comes to stuff like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess it depends a lot on how you view reviews, I see them as something regarding the state of a game _RIGHT NOW_ which means I can change negative reviews to positive ones if the game is fixed, or positive to negative ones if the game is ruined.

With KCD they churned out a lot of DLC that felt disconnected to the story, as well as never really fixing the issue with combat against multiple enemies, clumsy switching between targets etc. So I gave it a negative review, even though I enjoyed the story. Steam has no way for me to give the game "5/10" so it is a hard thing to balance.
 
Dragula said:
I guess it depends a lot on how you view reviews, I see them as something regarding the state of a game _RIGHT NOW_ which means I can change negative reviews to positive ones if the game is fixed, or positive to negative ones if the game is ruined.

With KCD they churned out a lot of DLC that felt disconnected to the story, as well as never really fixing the issue with combat against multiple enemies, clumsy switching between targets etc. So I gave it a negative review, even though I enjoyed the story. Steam has no way for me to give the game "5/10" so it is a hard thing to balance.
Click to expand...

I look at reviews as a guideline for what I might expect when I buy the game. If I see a guy played it for that long I expect something pissed him off that will not piss me off as bad and that is usually the case. Like balance concerns don't bother me in 2022 when games get patched every other day.

Take the DLC in your case. I would buy the game for 15 dollars and that would not be a problem for me whether it was tied in or not or however much it cost which they are usually over priced. I would give them a good review so they could try to make an even better game next time. If I had any cons I would list them in my positive review. I do not do that for shit games this must be said. I'm not a cocksucker.
 
Dragula said:
Well I would also rate a heroin addiction as negative despite taking up many hours of someones life.
Click to expand...

That is putting up a' straw man' and a 'whataboutism' in the same sentence. So well done.5084 trollification points.

TorontoReign said:
I'm not a cocksucker.
Click to expand...

I had played a game 'Soldiers of WW2' which I enjoyed so I bought the follow up ' Faces of War ' PC gamer magazine reviewed F O W and the writer called it Faeces of War . The review slagged it right off. I am not sure if it was the same edition or the next one but the same guy said of COH something like this. Company of heroes is brilliant I've not had this much fun in years blah blah , bigged the game right up.

I had played both FOW and COH and found FOW as good as if not better than COH both good. That reviewer marked them way apart though. So it confirmed to me those guys are bought and paid for so suck cock big style. IMHO.
 
I almost bought Company of Heroes again then I remembered I hate capture the flag style RTS.
 
TorontoReign said:
I almost bought Company of Heroes again then I remembered I hate capture the flag style RTS.
Click to expand...

Yeah capture the points that hold resources. Hold them. As your areas grow, theirs get smaller. Like RISK board game in some ways. Playable but a bit repetitive.

I bought men of war red tides the same series but then they did assault squad which I think was mainly for online multi or co-op. All I remember it was like ' Sudden Strike ' and ' Blitzkreig' where you would get shot up from well within the fog of war. Weird fucked right up.
 
TorontoReign said:
No he said the game NEEDS to be like that. I understand games change over time and you might grow to dislike it but it is usually very personal gripes that a person has while most of the reviews are positive.
Click to expand...
But that is the whole point of the reviews. For the players to give their opinions.

He said that they changed the uniqueness of the tanks, now all tanks of the same class are the same. I never played the game, but I would consider this a shitty change too.
He said that in the past year the game has been moving away from a nice strategic battle simulator into a shitty Battlefield clone, another thing that I would be pretty pissed about too. Since I like strategic games but hate Battlefield-type games, especially if it's a bad clone.

I would probably invest hundreds of hours in a strategic battle simulator too, but if it changed into a bad Battlefield clone, I would not recommend it anymore.

He also says that he would have recommended the game in the past, but all of these changes the devs keep making spoiled it for him. So it seems that person liked a lot how the game used to be, but changes spoiled it for him and so he doesn't recommend it anymore.

So to answer your first post, how can people play the game for hundreds of hours and then not recommend it? The answer is that the game changed for the worse (at least for them) after they had already played those hundreds of hours.
 
Risewild said:
For the players to give their opinions.
Click to expand...

I don't really know or care about that said game although your last comments were logical; some games do get 'improved' to make them worse.

More so on Youtube than on Steam a video will go up often with contentious subjects. Then when you wish to comment, the video shows 'comments not available on this video' A few British news channels do this so I never watch their vids. More and more of the social/culture videos do the same. So it's one way traffic like " Watch this hear what I have to say but don't chat back subscribe, send me your dough bye bye for now. ??!? Mad
 
The entire positive/negative rating for steam reviews is dumb as shit anyway. They should allow people to score from 1 to 10, which makes it easier to to write down your feelings on a game while giving the score you want to give. Because positive and negative are at extreme ends of the spectrum and sometimes you don't feel entirely positively or negatively about a game.
 
Norzan said:
The entire positive/negative rating for steam reviews is dumb as shit anyway. They should allow people to score from 1 to 10, which makes it easier to to write down your feelings on a game while giving the score you want to give. Because positive and negative are at extreme ends of the spectrum and sometimes you don't feel entirely positively or negatively about a game.
Click to expand...

THIS. This is kinda my point. That there is this dumb + or - system without any nuance. I have read reviews that were negative that just implied the person is a whiny bitch. Yes that is what reviews are for @Risewild but whiny bitches like to play games until they are done then act like they are not still good games. For the record this is a great game that I cannot afford yet and it annoys me that someone enjoyed it until he didn't then cried about it. I will stalk the person later to see if they still kept playing it.

Celerity on Codex played Darkest Dungeon for hundreds of hours and still rants about the game being shit to this day. My problem is not simply with a review being negative with lots of hours it is a review being negative with lots of hours with lots of autism thrown in.
 
Dragula said:
Touch grass.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your concern ;p. I've not long been in. I could not find any ' Grasses ' to touch so I touched a social security snoop. BTW I have no recollection of making the trollification comment . You may have nicked that from Twitter or Youtube. ( wonders )
 
Untitled.png


800 plus hours then whines when the game no longer getting updates is no longer getting constant updates in 2022 so 800 plus hour negative review due to autism.

Also it is criminal to charge for a game that people made. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top